I saw a warning on facebook this morning from the folks at Pithy Little Wine Co in San Luis Obispo; there is a petition being circulated in California, trying to qualify an initiative for the ballot of the November election in California, that would raise taxes on a bottle of wine about $5.
Link to SF Business Times article
The excise tax on a regular size 750 ml bottle of wine would increase 12,775%, from 4 cents to $5.11 if the Alcohol-Related Harm and Damage Services Act of 2010 were enacted.
Wine isn’t the only beverage being targeted, a six pack of beer will increase about $6 and and a bottles of scotch/gin/tequila/etc. would jump about $17.
In most of California, just about everyone knows someone who makes a living because of wine. Growing the grapes, making the wine, driving it to the store, creating a marketing or advertising campaign to sell it, selling it, helping you to your car with your purchase. In a time of recession, with many people unemployed and few worthwhile positions being offered, this initiative is a job crusher.
Do not be fooled into thinking that this will provide a strong and healthy revenue stream for the state, or that “sinners” should pay for the ills of society. California Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s office, tasked with analysis of the fiscal effects of ballot initiatives, forecasts a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in California state tax revenues from alcohol if this initiative were to be put on the ballot, and then pass successfully, as consumers cut back on their purchases.
Price check on aisle one:
Fred Franzia’s Two Buck Chuck will sell for over $7.
Folie a Deux’ Menage a Trois is $7 on sale, will be $12.
Toad Hollow’s Chardonnay is $13, will be $18.
Keller Estates’ La Cruz Pinot Noir is $42, will be $47.
Parducci’s True Grit Petite Sirah is $30, will be $35.
V. Sattui’s Vittorio Sauvignon Blanc is $22, will be $27.
The tax increase, on the six wines listed above, comes to 26%. That 26% average increase in price will keep consumers from buying the wine, which will cause more people in the wine industry to lose jobs, and cause the state to lose tax revenue it previously received.
Note: smart shoppers often buy more to save; if you were able to buy the six bottles above together (you can’t, but let’s pretend) to save 10%, the punishing additional tax increase of this proposed ballot measure remains fully in effect, and your additional tax burden increases to 29%.
Wineries are already paying tons of taxes to bring you a healthful beverage that goes great with food, friends, and family; wineries pay income, payroll, and excise taxes, and increasing taxes as the percentage of alcohol inside the bottle increases.
For the non wine drinkers among you; if you like the good occasional margarita at home, a $20 bottle of 1800 tequila will cost $37. Most hootch sold is cheaper, so the price increase will be more than the 86% here.
A six pack of Budweiser beer, nothing fancy, runs about $7 right now, but will cost $13 if this initiative makes the ballot, then passes. That 85% increase will run to 100% or more, as most Bud drinkers buy larger quantity to save money – but the tax increase won’t shrink at all.
How many people will spend over $2 per Bud…at home? Not many, and the tax revenues shrink further, and more people lose their jobs.
If you live in California, when you go to the supermarket and you see people with petitions to qualify initiative measures for the ballot, check to see if this dangerous proposal is among those the folks outside your store are asking you to sign.
Step one: do not sign the petition.
Step two: engage the signature collector in a vigorous, loud, debate. Ask why they are even collecting signatures for a measure that would raise taxes on a beverage where taxes are already collected. Ask how they can justify a business crippling 12,775% tax increase on any business during a recession. Ask if they are aware of the states impartial fiscal analysis forecasting a loss of tax revenue to the state in the hundreds of millions. Ask them if the $1 per signature they are being paid is worth the many jobs that will be lost if this initiative qualifies for the ballot and passes.
Your actions will prevent others from signing this petition as well. The initiative will not appear on the ballot if proponents fail to collect around 434,000 signatures by August 23, so any legal action that makes signature collection easy is recommended.
If wineries are forced to pay a 12,775% increase in excise tax, from 4 cents to $5.11, you will find the tax passed on to you and you will end up paying from around 26% to over 100% more for many items you now enjoy.
I urge you to send a note to the initiative’s authors Josie and Kent M Whitney at kjkwhitney@yahoo.com as well.
Here’s the text of the proposed initiative:
IMPOSES ADDITIONAL TAX ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Imposes an additional excise tax on alcoholic beverages, increasing the excise tax on each six-pack of beer from 11¢ to $6.08, on each 750 ml bottle of wine from 4¢ to $5.11, and on each 750 ml bottle of distilled spirits from 65¢ to $17.57. Requires additional excise tax revenues to be deposited into a special fund appropriated to the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs to finance programs to address alcohol-related harms as specified. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Additional state revenues of between $7 billion and $9 billion annually from an increase in state excise taxes on alcoholic beverages, with the proceeds going to support alcohol-related programs and services. A decrease in state and local revenues from existing excise and sales taxes on alcoholic beverages of several hundred million dollars annually due to a likely decline in consumption of alcoholic beverages. (10-0005.)
March 31, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter: “Will Trader Joe’s be forced to sell Seven Buck Chuck?” http://bit.ly/cwvi0V…
March 31, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Thanks for the heads up. With lots of stuff happening, this was my top article of the day.
March 31, 2010 at 4:22 PM
John, it is hard to think of a worse idea than this. I put a link to this blog in my email signature to help spread the word. Thank you for your heads up. It is hard to believe that such a bone headed initiative might pass but in today’s political climate one never knows.
March 31, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Rich,
The measures proponents will cast it as a way to increase tax revenue (although the impartial analysis forecasts a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue if this initiative becomes law), and they will cast this measure as a cure for alcohol’s detrimental effect on society (ignoring the innumerable positive aspects of wine, wine and food, wine and heath, wine and truth, wine and jobs, wine and love, wine and religion, etc.).
The liquor industry will fight against an increase of $1 per beer or $17 per bottle of distilled spirit. Wine writers, print or electronic, will be the white knights, educating the public, exposing the lies told by the measures proponents, casting wine in an appropriately positive light. 12,675% tax increases are just ridiculous, and this measure will be defeated.
I would love to work the next year on the “No on Prop _____” campaign.
Thanks for reading, thanks for linking, and tell your friends.
John
March 31, 2010 at 7:15 PM
For the record, John, the petitioners make about a dollar a signature.
You could try asking them if they drink, and if so, how many hours they would have to work to afford what they drink on a regular basis, should this law go into effect.
I used to run a petitioning office, and most petitioners drink.
You could also try giving him 10 bucks to not gather any signatures on this one for the next hour (then stay around to make sure he doesn’t – OR offer to buy all of his empty sheets from him).
The other thing is that petitioners are independent contractors, which means even if they work for a company pedaling six different initiatives, they don’t have to carry them all. You might try urging them not to carry it, OR, at the very least, putting it at the bottom/pitching it last, that way it will automatically be the one that gets the least sigs.
Oh, and yelling loudly? Most likely won’t work. People will think you are a jerk, and might even come to the aid of the petitioner…
March 31, 2010 at 8:31 PM
Dear Lillyth,
Thanks, I was just reading about about some of the typical costs associated with getting an initiative before the voters.
By loud, I meant speaking in an overhear-able voice, so as to influence others, not yelling which would garner the signature harvester sympathy. But thank you for allowing me to clear up something that clearly wasn’t.
Allowing $1 per signature and assuming a signature validity rate of around 70 percent, the couple should budget $645k to put this before the voters. I don’t know how much money they have, but I am confident that the liquor industry has more.
Asking the signature collector to put this one on the bottom of his pile of 5 to 10 petitions is a great idea. Practical, thanks for the great suggestion.
John
The voting could be enjoyably one sided on this ballot proposition.
March 31, 2010 at 11:20 PM
The average validity rate is 70%, but you can’t really count on that. Mine was an average of 80%, and I had some people working for me who were in the 90′s, and you have to be able to pay them all.
I saw many a campaign go down in flames before it got to the ballot because the backers did the math just like you did, and didn’t raise enough to cover the higher validity rates, extra photocopies of the petition sheets (ten sigs don’t always go on a sheet, so thinking you need 700k sigs, and therefore 70,000 sheets leads to major tactical errors.
I’ll certainly keep my eye out for folks in the city. I’ll remind them we are a city of lushes, and that they’ll never get people to stop to sign *that* if they go open with it. Along with some other friendly tips, of course, from an old pro, along with a hello to his boss…
BTW, if you DO run into someone carrying this, ask what they *are* getting per sig. I’d be curious. Also inquire about the other initiatives they are carrying & how much they are getting for them. (And couch it in a friendly way, like inquiring on behalf of a grown child who has been thinking about doing this. They may get a little defensive if they think you are questioning the right to get paid for what they are doing – which, believe it or not, a lot of people do)…
April 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by unravel101, Monty, The Consigliere, and others. J @winefinesse: Nice post by John On Wine today about the proposed CA Alcohol Tax: http://bit.ly/9zKqAX Glad we inspired you to get the word out! #wine [...]
April 3, 2010 at 12:03 AM
[...] Will Trader Joe’s be forced to sell Seven Buck Chuck? « John on Wine [...]
April 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Thanks for helping me get the word out.
John
April 5, 2010 at 1:47 PM
What the hell has happened to common sense? I cannot believe the morons in this state that believe the only option is to continue to tax us all to death. Lets vote all these liberal idiots out for good. The only way you increase business is to REDUCE the cost of doing business!!! Why do the powers refuse to look at the truth and take responsibility for their choices? Our state is going to collapse if the outrageous spending cycle does not stop.
April 5, 2010 at 3:22 PM
The sad thing, “morons” and “idiots” are not limited to one political party or philosophical leaning.
The initiative’s author is a retired Master Chief Petty Officer, who appends “PTL” (Praise the Lord) to correspondence, and lives near Orange County. Seriously, what political party do you think he more likely is a member of? I didn’t make an issue of it because I find doing so takes away from focusing on this initiative solely on the merits.
Liberals jammed a 100% tax increase down the throats of smokers. Kent and Josie Whitney would likely identify themselves as conservatives, and want to see a 12,775% tax increase on wine written into the state’s Constitution.
I appreciate the no nonsense ethos of the true Libertarian, and oppose both the cigarette tax already in effect and the wine tax proposed. I will note that when one looks at the health side of these initiatives, there is a health benefit in moderate use of wine, but I haven’t seen the study linking health benefits to a moderate use of tobacco products.
I do appreciate your comment, I think it is great when people from both sides of the political spectrum can come together in agreement.
You and I are in agreement; we both condemn this initiative.
I was just looking at Tulip Hill Winery’s website! Funny to have you visit my site on the same day.
Cheers,
John
The real problem in California, as I see it, is the initiative process itself. Nearly every initiative put on the ballot stinks as badly as this initiative, either reducing tax revenue, or directing specifically where revenue must be spent, or like this initiative both. Neither the Republican Governor, nor the Democratic Legislature in California is able to meet the demands of their constituents from a shrinking available General Fund; there is less and less discretion available to the state’s politicians, from either party, with each initiative loaded election.
April 7, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Me & my fellow classmates use your blogs as our reference materials. We look out for more interesting posts from your end about the same topic . Even the future updates about this topic would be of great help.
April 7, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Even though you are a spammer, looking for a backlink from my site, i love Top Gear, so I approved your comment.
John
April 9, 2010 at 8:05 PM
Tax sounds great! We have a lot of wineries in North Carolina and it will give a big boost to our sales.
Thanks California!
April 9, 2010 at 9:21 PM
Dear North Carolina wine fan,
Reading is fundamental. Superior California wines will not cost any more than they do now when purchased in North Carolina, so will continue to outsell your local wines by the same margin they do now.
North Carolina wines, if sold in California (they are not), would carry the excise tax as it would apply to all wines sold in California – regardless of origin. The likelihood that a North Carolina wine selling in California decreases to less than zero as the excise tax increases to $5.11 per bottle.
I’m sorry to have to bust your bubble, your ridiculous doesn’t understand what you read bubble.
Love,
John
April 15, 2010 at 9:17 AM
Thankyou, that’s very helpful information, much appreciated.
April 19, 2010 at 4:06 PM
You are welcome, and thank you Samual.
Cheers,
John
April 15, 2010 at 9:42 AM
A flat tax of 11% of ALL Americans would bring in more money to the government that they are bringing in today – but of course we would tick off a ton of liberals who now reside in their parents’ basements. But at this point if something is not done to reign in spending and taxes we will all be living there.
April 19, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Jeremy, aside from being offensive to roughly 40% of the population of the US, that your post would reduce taxes on insurance companies, and that you work for an insurance company; well, all of that pales in importance when compared with how ill conceived your solution to our budget difficulties is.
All flat taxes are, either by design or failure of imagination, regressive and economically punishing to the least among us. All true compassionate conservatives and compassionate liberals oppose flat taxes.
April 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Nice!
April 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Thanks,
John